Talk:Vice President of the United States
So many unknowns--Is this really useful? Turtle Fan 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :no, and its also an eyesore even if it had more names on it Jelay14 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::Several articles do link here, remember. TR 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::Eleven. Removing the links from those wouldn't be too taxing. Turtle Fan 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Let's delete, then. TR 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Actually, instead of deleting, let's do what we did with President (US-Worldwar) and list who is known. TR 01:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::::I suppose that works. :::::The thing is, all eleven articles either say "So and so became Vice President" or "When Vice President So-and-so visited him . . . " So while the links will take the reader to real information, the information that is relevant to whatever he was reading was known before the link was followed. Turtle Fan 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::But the article will put that information in one, easily accessible place. ML4E 04:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::It's still information he already knows. Turtle Fan 11:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Ah, but does he know the names of the other VPs? That's the purpose of these list articles, isn't it? TR 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Succession boxes will tell him the same thing. Oh, I don't know. Whatever. Turtle Fan 20:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) John Adams The curtailed version works nicely. And I like the little thumbnail on the Vice President that leads it off. Remember in HBO's John Adams movie when he keeps opining to the Senate and the Senators yell at him to remind him he's there only to cast tie-breaking votes--and then he finally does get to cast a tie-breaking vote, and he sits up there crowing in triumph as though he were the Duke of Braintree (nice title that) after all? Turtle Fan 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) :Yep. Truly, that first term as VP showed just how Adams was his own worst enemy. TR 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ::Poor Adams. And on top of all of that he had to feel his way through the office and establish precedents with nothing to go on. ::Here's an AH for you, suppose Adams were defter, more diplomatic. He establishes vice presidential precedents while senators and Cabinet secretaries are willing to cooperate with him and include him, not work at cross-purposes with him. Would the entire history of the vice presidency show the inclusion and reliance and leadership that wasn't really evident till Gore's tenure, or maybe Bush the Elder's at the earliest? Turtle Fan 01:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) :::I'd be more inclined to say yes if not for 2nd VP. The conflict between Adams and Jefferson during Adams term as POTUS would probably be worsened by any additional powers the VP may have had by that time. In that tense situation, Congress might feel compelled to act in some way, and given how inconsequential the office was meant to be to begin with, I'd imagine legislation and/or a constitutional amendment to once again curtail the VP. TR 01:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Something to that, but Adams's genteelity would extend into his time in the top spot as well. Not sure how much that would help their antagonism but it might, and should do something. Remember I have Adams working closely with Washington's Cabinet and getting along with them. ::::The Jefferson-Burr ugliness would probably do it if yours didn't, unless the idea that the Vice-President has a real job leads the electors to abandon the dubious practice of giving it as a booby prize to the loser, the President's arch-rival. ::::I've heard it suggested that the President and Vice President should be elected independently of one another. So you could vote for Obama and Palin, or McCain and Biden, or Bush and Lieberman or Gore and Cheney, et cetera. That might be the best thing for the Vice-Presidency: the VP is not a frustrated, embittered loser and can probably be trusted not to hinder the President's agenda at every opportunity; and he had to win the office in his own right, not by riding the coat-tails of a candidate who needed a sop to some voting group or other, so you're much likelier to avoid Quayle-esque milquetoasts unworthy of real responsibilities. ::::Now you say the Constitution deliberately made the VP inconsequential. I've never come across this. My thoughts, open to interpretation, were that it's just another one of those articles in which the Founders didn't bother spelling out details because they were sick of nickling and diming each other and trusted posterity to figure it out as they went along. Turtle Fan 05:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC) :::::Late response is better than no response. I think my use of the word "meant" is over stated. The plain language of the article really doesn't allow much for the VP to do, and several VPs have been painfully aware of this. I do agree on your point that at the very least, the Founding Fathers weren't that interested (for whatever reason) in spelling out in better detail what the VP would do. Perhaps by compromise, perhaps by design. TR 19:23, October 30, 2009 (UTC) ::::::True the Constitution doesn't give the VP much to do, but it gives less still to the Supreme Court, and the Founders didn't complain when Marshall staked out a major role for that body, most notably in Marbury v Madison. I'm going with the idea that they just didn't care what he did as long as the Pres was living. Turtle Fan 19:47, October 30, 2009 (UTC) Other Vice Presidents Today's addition: "Andrew Johnson appears in "Must and Shall," watching Hamlin's inauguration. It is unrevealed whether he became Vice President himself, although it is likely." The sense I have from M&S is that it was unlikely Johnson became VP. What sticks in my mind is Johnson glaring at Hamlin when he is taking the oath of office after Lincoln's death and Hamlin gloating to himself that Johnson isn't kicking him off the ticket now. ML4E (talk) 18:43, June 3, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, no way was Johnson Hamlin's VP. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:50, June 4, 2016 (UTC) ::In a Radical Republican ruled world, it's essentially impossible for Johnson to become a VP. But as stranger things have happened, I changed it to "unlikely". TR (talk) 15:35, June 4, 2016 (UTC) :::I suppose it's no stranger than Southern Democrats lining up behind Horace Greeley in 1872. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:59, June 4, 2016 (UTC) ::::Johnson is stated to be already chose as the NUP nominee, though I suppose he could be booted off. The party wouldn't necessarily want to do that, as Johnson had his own voting base. It's a reasonable case of strange bedfellows if he were the VP.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:08, June 4, 2016 (UTC) :::::As the Radicals disdained Johnson, it's easy to imagine that Johnson did in fact get the boot, especially given what we know about the history of the M&S timeline. However, it's not impossible that they kept him, as I said. Thus "unlikely". TR (talk) 19:03, June 4, 2016 (UTC) Joe Steele I see no useful purpose in Jonathan's changes. It just shows an assumed predecessor, then Garner as a tag-along VP to Steele, then a vacancy when Garner becomes President, and then an irrelevant line about Garner's removal as President (in the VP article). This is satisfactorily covered in the previous version's one paragraph. The justification "Joe Steele VP progress is quite significant." is covered in the Steele and Garner articles and not needed here. ML4E (talk) 18:26, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :I agree. It adds nothing. TR (talk) 18:40, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Vilcabamba "Whatever title the heirs used is never revealed, but the office is the functional equivalent of Vice Presidency in that timeline." No, it isn't. It's the functional equivalent of an heir apparent in a system that is itself the functional equivalent of a monarchy. An heir apparent is not a vice office, and nothing shows Moffatt IV engaging in any of the duties of the VP. There appears to be no VP in this story. If we must engage "Vilcabamba" on this page (and since there are other aspects of presidential politics on display, we probably ought to), then it should be limited to a line saying "No idea about the status of VP" and be done with it. TR (talk) 20:59, February 7, 2017 (UTC) :I find the whole thing (including the succession boxes for the various Moffatts) to be a stinking pile of sh!t create hollis-bollis by Jonathan based on various wiki articles here and not on the story. As such, I reverted all of it. I am willing to discuss something reasonable but not this crap. I think I will go away for now to cool down and return later. ML4E (talk) 18:36, February 8, 2017 (UTC)